What is Digg?270 Comments
- graiz, on 10/22/2007, -19/+54Five things you can do:
- Walk to work, share a ride, take your bike.
- Plant a tree.
- Reuse, Reduce, Recycle
- Support politicians that 'get it'
- Tell someone you know these five things - BlueSkyfish, on 10/22/2007, -7/+38And all life needs water, so let's put you in a glass box and fill it to the top with precious H2O and see what happens.
We all took 3rd grade chemistry class, we know what ***** CO2 is... - terminalpariah, on 10/21/2007, -1/+20No, then it stops being recursive.
- EndersGame, on 10/21/2007, -3/+18By 3rd grade I was just getting over being robbed of nap time + glass of milk. The most dramatic coming of age tale of my life. Still pisses me off THATS ***** BAIT AND SWITCH YOU ***** *****
/rocking back and forth in crazy chair - GreyICE, on 10/21/2007, -4/+18Yes, believe a novelist with no scientific credentials over degreed scientists with experience in the field. Brilliant!
- potifar, on 10/24/2007, -4/+17Bah, spam. Actual article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.stm
- ZenMojo, on 10/22/2007, -8/+21You sound, incorrectly, as if global warming has a less than drastic effect on climate change. The effect is drastic, the extent is still nebulous, but if you think ducking your head in the sand is going to solve our problems (of which there are many caused due to global climate change, whether or not the change is manmade).
To those who think global climate change is not a problem despite the evidence simply because of how questionable it is that we contribute to that climate change, what the Hell would you say if an asteroid was headed toward Earth? "Stop overreacting, it's not like WE put the Earth in front of that asteroid...who gives a *****?" - inactive, on 10/22/2007, -14/+25This shouldn't be happening, considering that the volume of water on earth should be increasing due to the polar ice caps. Meh...
- pintomp3, on 10/21/2007, -3/+12scamerica brought to you by exxon.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/22/2007, -3/+12Actually, I listen to the scientists... who also happen to agree with the politicians and the hippies.
- Brian48216, on 10/21/2007, -7/+16way to read the article totally wrong.
It means the researchers don't know if the change in CO2 absorption is due to climate change or natural variation.
The focus here is not on global warming, the focus is on CO2 absorption rates in the oceans.
Nice rose colored glasses there. It suits you well. - tearor, on 10/21/2007, -2/+11 As the seas plankton die, seabirds die too
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/1/114820/7173 - SpykerSpeed, on 10/22/2007, -5/+14...or if the "global warming" is due to the change. Cause and effect aren't clearly established either.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/21/2007, -4/+12I wonder if you could explain for the class exactly how much money there is to be made in fearmongering global warming? I'm so freakin' tired of the "scientists are only in it for the money" argument. If money's going to be made over whether or not global warming is man-made, Big Oil's going to make it, not your average research climatologist.
- hominidx, on 10/21/2007, -4/+12Feh, Like I believe in oceans!
- rz8472, on 10/22/2007, -3/+10I'm more concerned about that critical temperature when the ocean releases its huge methane stores and "farts". Being 4X more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, methane is something that we should all look out for.
- AZooYorkMystery, on 10/21/2007, -1/+8Ocean takes less CO2: Global warming melts polar ice caps. Changes hemispheric climates. Half of population dies.
Ocean takes more CO2: Oceans become acidic traps that kill/mutate every living thing in the ocean. Half of population dies.
Don't worry people; either way we're screwed. Didn't you hate the unsureness? - WasabiBomb, on 10/24/2007, -2/+9Uh, no, I don't think anyone is surprised. Just another piece of data which indicates that, yeah, we're screwin' the environment up even further.
- Jugalator, on 10/21/2007, -2/+9I actually think it was theorized for a while, and among the problems with the greenhouse effect partially becoming self-sustaining if initiated. Of course, it should be added that they still haven't discovered whether this seem to be from the climate change or not. All I'm saying is that I believe there were theories that predict this behavior however.
- pintomp3, on 10/22/2007, -4/+11so you are saying the ocean's are holding less gas because they are getting warmer, but are denying global warming? the logic of a denier.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7Who the hell is digging you down?
This is the same concern we found with the frozen tundra -- as it melts, it releases huge amounts of Methane. The NATURAL causes can accelerate this problem -- and humans are destroying more Carbon "sinks" like forests and ocean. It may be that our destruction of swamps and such has more impact than our cars and cows.
But this may be related to all the alarms they had going off on tankers. They discovered that all these tankers weren't leaking -- the methane alarms were being triggered by the ocean. Do a google search on "tankers detect methane releases from oceans." It may be we are in a much worse situation than we thought. - WasabiBomb, on 10/22/2007, -2/+9So you're saying that CO2 emission diminished? Or are you just pulling half-assed guesses out of your half-ass?
- Zal91, on 10/22/2007, -2/+8Well actually, more water would decrease the concentration of carbon dioxide.
- Murdats, on 10/21/2007, -0/+6really, a whole country produces more co2 then one digg user?
are you sure, he may have a really powerful computer that uses a lot of power, it might be a close call. - wreckosaurus, on 10/21/2007, -1/+7This isn't a matter of opinion, this is you denying reality.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/21/2007, -2/+8Uh, actually, there have been more landfalls of Class 5 hurricanes this year than ever before. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
- inactive, on 10/21/2007, -2/+8RAmen
- OneLess, on 10/21/2007, -3/+9There's also a lot of money to be made from doing "research" for energy companies on how global warming isn't happening, so the point is at the very most moot. You're also calling the integrity of every scientist worldwide into question, because if climate scientists are willing to create a made-up world disaster to make money, biologists could be making up crap about corn ethanol to get funds, astronomers could be falsifying the existence of nearly every well-known cosmic object, and doctors could be falsely diagnosing people with cancer to "treat" them. It's a mighty steep slope you're on the precipice of.
- tmbrwolf19, on 10/21/2007, -2/+8I dunno what you think you know about science... but that statement is a fairly standard scientific statement. The purpose of science is to learn more, and when you learn something... it leads to more questions. The question at the end of this study? "Is this the result of climate change or a natural event?" I could bet you my socks right now that someone is submitting a proposal to study that question right now. If you actually ever looked a research papers and not just news stories or blogs you would know that. People claiming certainty are never scientists, they are the reporters or PR people.
I should remind you 'gravity' is no more then a theory and there is no way to prove 100% that it really exists. There are even parts of gravity which aren't properly explained even today. It doesn't make it any less real or valid. Global Warming is also a theory and there is no way to prove 100% that it really exists. But just like gravity, the current theory is the most accurate explains the majority of principles. Gravity has been tested by so many variations that its now considered a scientific law, but that still doesn't mean complete certainty.
While I am sure you like to think yourself open minded. Accusing those who disagree with you of being wrong and exaggerating a simple statement to the point of being a make of break argument, shows a lack of understanding on the subject. - Zique, on 10/22/2007, -3/+8I get it! The 95% of scientists who believe global warming to be man-made with aren't real scientists because you don't want them to be right!
- scott1, on 10/21/2007, -3/+8Seriously, please stfu and do those things.
- ZenMojo, on 10/21/2007, -2/+7Plankton, kelp, and algae are photosynthetic plant-life. Are you surprised that a change in temperature causes a decrease in CO2 absorption?
- clear9, on 10/21/2007, -1/+6I guess a huge problem with this is phytoplankton
phytoplankton are responsible for half of the earth's photosynthesis, and when waters warm their numbers drop, so less CO2 is absorbed, then waters warm more, turning into a worsening cycle - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Warmer air can hold more water vapor.
You aren't saying something that Climatologists don't know. A 2% change in atmosphere will cause HUGE effects. Is this some clueless statement to replace the "duh, like all the heat comes from the sun -- the sun causes global warming, duh." ? - Jugalator, on 10/22/2007, -4/+9"Get educated, CO2 is good for life"
YOU get educated. There's a best level for most things in life when it's good, and when it's bad, CO2 included.
Or maybe you will find your paradise at the planet Venus? :-p
Note: This comment is completely besides whether the greenhouse effect is caused by mostly man or not. It's about the supidity of claiming all CO2 is good for you. No serious scientist on either side would claim that. Not a single one. - Mardala, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5I find articles that are 1:1 content to ad ratio hard to read.
- tmbrwolf19, on 10/22/2007, -3/+8I am guessing you have never had a house plant live past a week. Plants are incredibly complex organisms and saying that more CO2 is better for them is like saying more O2 is great for us (which it isn't). This is a completely false assumption because your assuming CO2 is all your plant needs. Temperature, precipitation, humidity, air patterns... they all are factors in a plants growth and also something we collectively call a climate. You ***** with the climate, you kill the plants. Also what happens when you absorb CO2 into water? Its called carbonic acid. Now when you realize that lots of the life in the oceans is protected by shells made out of calcium, this causes some problems. Shut up with the junk science already and go learn some basic science.
- annonimality, on 10/21/2007, -1/+6Begin reality.
Bush's 9 trillion dollar National Debt bad, Clinton's budget surpluses good.
Bush's failed war in Iraq bad, Clinton's victory in the Balkans good.
Bush's 2000 presidential loss bad, Gore's 2000 presidential victory good.
End reality. - wreckosaurus, on 10/21/2007, -6/+10You're a creationist AND a global warming denier? Actually, that's not surprising at all.
- SiNN4R, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4Water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas.
- annonimality, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5You're taking a good first step, you're actually admitting that Global Warming is happening. You're just unsure of what is causing it, people or nature. I applaud you, you're doing better than most conservatives.
- sp3rmizoid, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4You mean the deforestation in places like Brazil & China?
Still means that global warming is caused by human activity.
What about the worldwide forest fires in the last 2 years. - inactive, on 10/22/2007, -15/+19Al Gore powerpoint presentation or it didn't happen.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5but, strangely enough - those same sort of people are often the ones who believe in Social Darwinism -- go figure. They must enjoy being wrong.
- MarkusBlair, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Michael Crichton is tot Global Warming as Dan Brown is to _______________.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?co ... - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4No, the earth HAS NOT always maintained balance. There are significant periods in earth history where old life forms are wiped out and new ones form -- usually when the climate changes.
2.5 Billion years ago, cyano-bacteria released oxygen, and it poisened most of the life on earth (most of it anarobic bacteria). This reduced methane in the atmosphere at first, but the die-off of other organisms meant the earth froze -- pockets of life remained around volcanic vents, but the earth was at -50 degrees and very close to being frozen forever.
You point about more plants is not guaranteed - certain things can die off -- not creating a balance but sending things spiraling out of control. - scott1, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5Yes we need C02 to keep the Earth warm enough to sustain life but having too much of it is bad.
- tmbrwolf19, on 10/21/2007, -2/+6He is a doctor... of medicine. How does that apply to earth science? It's like taking your mechanics opinion on your broken food over your doctors.
- Angostura, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4God, I get SICK of people going on about this. Yes there has BUT today we are actively converting carbon that has been sequestered over billions of years into atmospheric CO2 and we are doing it in the space of a few hundred. I bet you would sit their as an arsonist set a match to your house saying 'that's OK, there have always been natural brush fires'.
- Jaymo89, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3Do you know how to work out the volume of a sphere? :) Your calculations are incorrect.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 262 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is